EDITORIAL: Rezonings need serious consideration

The Montgomery County Commission must fully appreciates the gravity of the property rezoning decisions that it is to be confronted with in December.

This is not a black-and-white issue. There is tremendous gray area to navigate, with jobs and livelihoods at stake on both sides of the debate.

The importance of protecting property rights under the amended Clarksville-Montgomery County Growth Plan is a key consideration.

But, let's not forget local taxpayers' $28.6 million investment in the expanded Clarksville-Montgomery County Corporate Business Park. If it is true that residential zoning near the park could damage industrial recruitment efforts, we have to respect and try to protect that investment. The investment is too big to argue about who failed to communicate when, where and how during the process of amending the Growth Plan.

What matters is the community's future, it's economic expansion, jobs and household incomes.

Taxpayers with a long memory about this $28.6 million land buy are going to expect careful foresight and strong leadership on this issue, just as they are going to expect fairness in securing and preserving property rights and rezoning that's lawful and protected by regulations that the Growth Plan coordinating committee sought.

County commissioners will consider in December approval of three rezoning requests near the industrial park,two of which are clearly controversial.

That's the recommendation of the Regional Planning Commission after its monthly meeting Wednesday, despite the Industrial Development Board's request, and planning staff's recommendation, that consideration of the zoning cases be delayed for one month.

After a sometimes tense meeting, the decision to proceed with a recommendation of approval on all three zoning cases was unanimous. Planning Commissioner Robert Nichols cited the recent amendments to the Growth Plan allowing more residential zoning classifications in "Planned Growth Area 4" near the industrial park as justification. It now goes to the Courthouse for a final and deciding vote.

The three zoning cases at issue are:

One is a request is for a "multi-family project." Another is to "extend existing R-4 zoning and provide a buffer between commercial and single-family residential zones." These interests say they are offering 500-foot setbacks from the IDB property as a compromise. The third seeks an R-4 District, but this case was seemingly less controversial, primarily because the proposal is set back beyond the 1,200 buffer that the IDB recognizes.

Part of the developers' argument is that there is no such 1,200-foot buffer recorded in the Register of Deeds office, although the IDB asks that the boundary be honored. Mitchell Ross, an attorney for one of the developers, stated their position this way:

"If the IDB wants a 1,200-foot buffer, they need to buy it. So far that hasn't happened."

It's not just these three rezoning cases that are noteworthy. The bigger picture is the long-term impact of the amended Growth Plan. If need be, it should be further amended to solve concerns about residential encroachment around the industrial park.

These issues deserve thoughtful, careful consideration before these rezonings come to a vote.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

EDITORIAL: Rezonings need serious consideration

The Montgomery County Commission must fully appreciates the gravity of the property rezoning decisions that it is to be confronted with in December.This is not a black-and-white issue. There is